Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 27 January 2017 11:32 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B444A1294AA; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:32:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WcJpDTUiqj-Y; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:32:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E38FB129448; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 03:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [122.52.28.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C668818013D1; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:32:27 +0100 (CET)
To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <495ABB60-04F9-4ADC-95B0-4081DDA05E0D@cisco.com> <D4ABEA82.9905B%acee@cisco.com> <98BD05F7-1D12-4C44-9D2E-3C87A08578AC@cisco.com> <044362de-9519-1baa-adf5-46c07ef9657e@pi.nu> <77C9B336-B65B-4DA1-BF27-17FE0E9491A8@cisco.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <608fc90f-2443-5d62-5e42-c0049d3a7b5c@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:32:21 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <77C9B336-B65B-4DA1-BF27-17FE0E9491A8@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/zDNuKu0_bFz5o0g7WLiCExTopJI>
Cc: RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:32:38 -0000
Tarek,
On the “pop-impose-and-forward” are you saying that what happens is that
an incoming packet with this label stack:
+-------+
| Lz |
+-------+
| Ly |
+-------+ +-------+
| La | | Lx |
+-------+ +-------+
| Lb | | Lv |
+-------+ +-------+
| Lc | leaves the LSR as | Lc |
+-------+ +-------+
| PL | | PL |
| | | |
That is a pop (La) swap (La to Lv), push (Lx), push (Ly), push(Lx)
operation, right?
So nothing but push, pop, swap.
Why do we need to single out the pop-swap-push(times n)-forward
operation?
/Loa
On 2017-01-27 13:26, Tarek Saad (tsaad) wrote:
> Hi Loa,
>
> On 2017-01-24, 8:34 PM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>
> Tarek,
>
> We've used push, swap and pop, since the beginning of MPLS,
> what is the reason to rename "push" to "impose" now?
> [TS]: “impose” is quite common too, but I will raise this up in our next meeting and try to converge on “push” instead.
>
> What is the difference between 3 and 4 below?
> [TS]: the intention was to distinguish a case where the top label is popped and replaced with a series of labels “pop-impose-and-forward” vs. special case of swap the top label “swap-and-forward”.
>
> Regards,
> Tarek
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 2017-01-24 22:05, Tarek Saad (tsaad) wrote:
> > Hi Acee,
> >
> >
> >
> > The MPLS operations we’ve defined are:
> >
> > 1. impose-and-forward
> >
> > 2. pop-and-forward (e.g. PHP behavior)
> >
> > 3. pop-impose-and-forward
> >
> > 4. swap-and-forward
> >
> > 5. pop-and-lookup
> >
> >
> >
> > Currently nhlfe-role is defining the path-role: primary, pure-backup,
> > primary-and-backup.
> >
> > This may equally apply to IP-RIBs (e.g. to cover IP-FRR) too, so we can
> > remove it from mpls augmentation if it can be present in
> > draft-acee-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-00 (for example).
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tarek
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
> > *Date: *Monday, January 23, 2017 at 5:23 PM
> > *To: *Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>,
> > "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>
> > *Subject: *Re: MPLS Base YANG Module
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Tarek,
> >
> >
> >
> > Since these are augmentations to the IPv4 and IPv6 unicast RIBs, what
> > operation would be valid other than imposition (i.e., push)? Also, what
> > is the nhlfe-role? I see the role type defined in the expired base MPLS
> > model.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Acee
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *"Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>
> > *Date: *Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 9:27 PM
> > *To: *"mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org
> > <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>, Acee Lindem
> > <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
> > *Subject: *MPLS Base YANG Module
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi WG/all,
> >
> >
> >
> > As part of “draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang”, we are trying to model the
> > MPLS FTN, NHLFE and ILM tables in YANG.
> >
> > One proposal is to augment the IETF routing RIB model (rfc8022) for
> > V4 and V6 RIBs so IP prefix route also carries the additional MPLS
> > route local label and remote label bindings per next-hop.
> >
> > Below highlights the augmentation of the RIB model for V4/V6. For
> > MPLS cross-connects (non-IP mpls routes), we propose those to reside
> > under a new address-family (MPLS) RIB, by defining a new identity as
> > below.
> >
> > Let us know if you have feedback/comments on this proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *_Example IPv4 RIB augmention for MPLS (highlighted in yellow):_*
> >
> >
> >
> > | +--ro ribs
> >
> > | +--ro rib* [name]
> >
> > | +--ro name string
> >
> > | +--ro address-family identityref
> >
> > | +--ro default-rib? boolean {multiple-ribs}?
> >
> > | +--ro routes
> >
> > | | +--ro route*
> >
> > | | +--ro route-preference? route-preference
> >
> > | | +--ro next-hop
> >
> > | | | +--ro (next-hop-options)
> >
> > | | | +--:(simple-next-hop)
> >
> > | | | | +--ro outgoing-interface?
> > if:interface-state-ref
> >
> > | | | | +--ro v4ur:next-hop-address?
> > inet:ipv4-address
> >
> > | | | | +--ro mpls:remote-labels* mpls-label
> >
> > | | | | +--ro mpls:operation?
> > label-operation
> >
> > | | | +--:(special-next-hop)
> >
> > | | | | +--ro special-next-hop? enumeration
> >
> > | | | +--:(next-hop-list)
> >
> > | | | +--ro next-hop-list
> >
> > | | | +--ro next-hop*
> >
> > | | | +--ro outgoing-interface?
> > if:interface-state-ref
> >
> > | | | +--ro v4ur:address?
> > inet:ipv4-address
> >
> > | | | +--ro mpls:index? string
> >
> > | | | +--ro mpls:backup-index? string
> >
> > | | | +--ro mpls:role?
> > nhlfe-role
> >
> > | | | +--ro mpls:outgoing-labels*
> > mpls-label
> >
> > | | | +--ro mpls:operation?
> > label-operation
> >
> > | | +--ro source-protocol identityref
> >
> > | | +--ro active? empty
> >
> > | | +--ro last-updated? yang:date-and-time
> >
> > | | +--ro v4ur:destination-prefix? inet:ipv4-prefix
> >
> > | | +--ro mpls:local-label? mpls-label
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For MPLS cross-connects (non-IP mpls routes), we propose to reside
> > under a new address-family (MPLS) RIB, by defining a new identity as
> > below:
> >
> >
> >
> > identity mpls {
> >
> > base rt:address-family;
> >
> > description
> >
> > "This identity represents the MPLS address family.";
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tarek
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
> > *Date: *Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:33 PM
> > *To: *Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>,
> > "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
> > *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *"Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>
> > *Date: *Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:00 PM
> > *To: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>,
> > "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
> > *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
> >
> >
> >
> > Also for completeness, the model in
> > “draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model” seems to present a “single”
> > list of routes that contain all the different route-types
> > (including MPLS routes).. It was mentioned that there are
> > discussions between authors of “draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model”
> > and draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg”. Has anything emerged that
> > can help us steer the MPLS augmentation?
> >
> >
> >
> > You should align with RFC 8022 where there is a separate model per
> > address family.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Acee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +--rw route-list* [route-index]
> >
> > +--rw route-index uint64
> >
> > +--rw match
> >
> > | +--rw (route-type)?
> >
> > | +--:(ipv4)
> >
> > | | +--rw ipv4
> >
> > | | +--rw (ip-route-match-type)?
> >
> > | | +--:(dest-ipv4-address)
> >
> > | | | ...
> >
> > | | +--:(src-ipv4-address)
> >
> > | | | ...
> >
> > | | +--:(dest-src-ipv4-address)
> >
> > | | ...
> >
> > | +--:(ipv6)
> >
> > | | +--rw ipv6
> >
> > | | +--rw (ip-route-match-type)?
> >
> > | | +--:(dest-ipv6-address)
> >
> > | | | ...
> >
> > | | +--:(src-ipv6-address)
> >
> > | | | ...
> >
> > | | +--:(dest-src-ipv6-address)
> >
> > | | ...
> >
> > | +--:(mpls-route)
> >
> > | | +--rw mpls-label uint32
> >
> > | +--:(mac-route)
> >
> > | | +--rw mac-address uint32
> >
> > | +--:(interface-route)
> >
> > | +--rw interface-identifier if:interface-ref
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tarek
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>
> > *Date: *Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM
> > *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com
> > <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>, "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
> > *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Acee for your review and comments. The authors met and we
> > discussed your comments, see below for more..
> >
> >
> >
> > >> I really only have one comment and that is that the “config false” version of interface-mpls need not be replicated in both the rt:routing and rt:routing-state trees.
> >
> > We discussed this and have some concerns due to potential
> > upcoming changes discussed at netmod group. Xufeng will follow
> > up on this thread regarding this.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> when some of the MPLS operational state will be added? The obvious examples are the ILM, FTN, and NHLFEs.
> >
> > We’ve been discussing this, and we have some initial
> > implementation of the tables under mpls @
> > https://github.com/ietf-mpls-yang/te/blob/master/ietf-mpls.yang.tree..
> > However, we’re also discussing the possibility of augmenting RIB
> > for MPLS routes (see below) as you pointed..
> >
> >
> >
> > >> One view is that the ILM, FTN, and NHLFEs could be provided via an augmentation to the RIB…
> >
> > It is possible to have MPLS FTN table realized as an
> > augmentation to existing IPv4 and IPv6 RIBs models defined in
> > “draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg”. However, for pure MPLS-routes
> > (keyed by label or aka the ILM table), this would require a new
> > separate list of routes (new address family?) and a new “MPLS”
> > RIB. In section 5.1 of “draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg”, the
> > routes have mandatory “destination-prefix” attribute, and one
> > way to have the MPLS route list is to redefine
> > “destination-prefix” so it signifies the MPLS incoming label for
> > MPLS routes. Any thoughts on this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tarek and co-authors
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com
> > <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
> > *Date: *Friday, December 23, 2016 at 12:59 PM
> > *To: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com
> > <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, "draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
> > *Subject: *Re: [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
> > *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org
> > <mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
> > *Resent-To: *<jescia.chenxia@huawei.com
> > <mailto:jescia.chenxia@huawei.com>>, <bin_wen@cable.comcast.com
> > <mailto:bin_wen@cable.comcast.com>>, <igor.bryskin@huawei.com
> > <mailto:igor.bryskin@huawei.com>>, <vbeeram@juniper.net
> > <mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>>, <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
> > <mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>, <rgandhi@cisco.com
> > <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>>, <skraza@cisco.com
> > <mailto:skraza@cisco.com>>, Tarek Saad <tsaad@cisco.com
> > <mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>>, <raqib@brocade.com
> > <mailto:raqib@brocade.com>>
> > *Resent-Date: *Friday, December 23, 2016 at 12:59 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Rtg-dt-yang-arch <rtg-dt-yang-arch-bounces@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Acee
> > Lindem <acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
> > *Date: *Friday, December 23, 2016 at 12:52 PM
> > *To: *"draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>"
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang@ietf.org>>
> > *Cc: *RTG YANG Design Team <rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org
> > <mailto:rtg-dt-yang-arch@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu
> > <mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
> > *Subject: *[Rtg-dt-yang-arch] MPLS Base YANG Module
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >
> >
> >
> > Loa asked if I would do a review of the base MPLS YANG
> > document. I really only have one comment and that is that
> > the “config false” version of interface-mpls need not be
> > replicated in both the rt:routing and rt:routing-state
> > trees. For consistency, I’d recommend removing it from
> > rt:routing.
> >
> >
> >
> > I’d also ask where and when some of the MPLS operational
> > state will be added? The obvious examples are the ILM, FTN,
> > and NHLFEs.
> >
> >
> >
> > One view is that the ILM, FTN, and NHLFEs could be provided via
> > an augmentation to the RIB…
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Acee
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
>
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Tarek Saad (tsaad)
- Re: [mpls] MPLS Base YANG Module Loa Andersson